# Matheney v. State

> Indiana Supreme Court · November 24, 1997 · 688 N.E.2d 883

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9521320

## Case

- **Full name:** Alan L. MATHENEY, Appellant (Petitioner Below), v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee (Respondent Below)
- **Court:** Indiana Supreme Court
- **Decided:** November 24, 1997
- **Citations:** 688 N.E.2d 883; 1997 Ind. LEXIS 198; 1997 WL 731610
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Boehm
- **Judges:** Boehm, Dickson, Selby, Shepard, Sullivan
- **Cited by:** 56 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9521320

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- stating that post-conviction rules create a narrow remedy for subsequent collateral challenges to convictions

## Opinion text

BOEHM, Justice,
concurring.
For the reasons stated in my dissent in Lambert v. State, 675 N.E.2d 1060 (Ind.1996), I believe that a procedurally defective sentencing order in a death penalty case should require remand for resentencing. Based on this record I cannot conclude that the sentencing decisions of the court were unaffected by the questionnaire described in the court’s majority opinion. It appears more probable than not that the questionnaire was never communicated to the parties. In a matter as sensitive as a death penalty proceeding, the greatest care must be taken to afford all parties the opportunity to present their issues in a full and fair proceeding. The slightest ex parte communication runs the risk of tainting the proceeding. Howev *911 er, I do not believe I should refrain from participation in the • reweighing exercise directed by the majority on the ground that I would not have designed the process to include it. For that reason I concur in all portions of the opinion, except as to part III, and concur in result as to part III.
Having explained this position, I do not expect to find it necessary to reiterate it in future cases in the unhappy but foreseeable circumstance that the same issue presents itself again.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9521320. Public record. Not legal advice.